From July, couples intending to get married will be eligible for a $200 government-funded voucher for relationship counselling. It’s something of a pet project of Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews, and the idea was met with predictable scorn from those who see this government as determined to take us on a nostalgia trip to the 1950s.

Andrews is a socially conservative Catholic whose wife Margaret has worked as a marriage counsellor. He’s one of many conservatives convinced that our deepest social problems are related to the decline of the institution of marriage, an unfashionable idea these days, but a persistent one. Andrews wrote a book on the subject two years ago in which he argued that the greatest threat to the West was the “steady but continuing breakdown of the essential structures of civil society – marriage, family and community”.

Yet here’s a $200 cheque for starry-eyed lovers who can afford to spend an average of $40,000 on the dress, cake, flowers and soggy chicken.

The $20 million pilot program is small beer, but it does raise the obvious question about the government’s priorities and consistency. This is meant to be the end of the “age of entitlement”. Disability and unemployment benefits are being targeted. Our health costs are said to be unsustainable. The May budget will be a horror show. Yet here’s a $200 cheque for starry-eyed lovers who can afford to spend an average of $40,000 on the dress, cake, flowers and soggy chicken.

Putting the consistency question aside, the idea is actually rather sweet, given the revolution over the past 30 years in how we organise our private lives. Pre-marriage counselling is well intentioned, but it misses the point on so many levels. The money will be available for de facto and gay couples (who can’t marry at all at the moment, so that’s presumably for relationship problems generally). But the focus is on marriage and these days, any cost to government must be justified in economic terms.

Advertisement

Andrews cites studies showing that the cost of divorce was about $6 billion a year in 1998. “So we would only have to prevent 200 divorces or 200 people deciding not to get married because they worked out beforehand they weren’t suitable for each other [to cover the cost],” he said recently.

All this is confusing because divorces are on the way down. Our divorce rate is the lowest it’s been for 30 years – it was 2.2 divorces for every 1000 residents in 2012 – back in 1980 it was 2.7. Indeed, young couples tying the knot are less likely to divorce than their parents. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, divorces where children under 18 are involved are dropping too – they made up 65 per cent of divorces in 1996, and 48 per cent now. A third of first-time marriages will still fall apart, but those figures are improving.

This issue isn’t that divorce is skyrocketing; it’s that more of us aren’t marrying at all. In 2011, just 49 per cent of Australians aged 15 and over were married; it was more than 60 per cent a few decades ago. We’re living together without getting married, with or without children, or we’re living alone. Around one-third of babies are born to unmarried mothers, some with partners, some taking advantage of IVF because partners have proven impossible to find.

Marriage champions like to point out that a wedding really matters – married people are financially better off, even happier. Overall, their kids do better, and they are more likely to stay together than de facto couples. But there’s little evidence that marriage is the cause of these things. Marriage is increasingly a middle-class institution, even a sign of social status. People who get hitched are older, richer and better educated to start with, negotiating their relationships as equal partners with shared interests.

The less affluent and educated you are, the less likely you’ll get married. The story has flipped in a generation, with big social consequences. Sixty-one per cent of women aged 30 to 34 with a university degree were married in 2006, compared with 53 per cent of those with no post-secondary education. If you’re a man who is unemployed or whose work is insecure, your chances of getting married or partnering are slim. The problem isn’t that you’re not married; it’s that you’re finding it increasingly hard to get a steady, well-paid job.

There are many de facto couples raising children as competently or incompetently as anyone else. Some go on to get married, others do not. Single parents by choice or otherwise are heroic, but they tend to need things other than $200 for relationship counselling. Childcare anyone?

It seems reasonable to ask: why should governments pay for counselling sessions for the healthy, wealthy and educated? There are tough issues highlighted by how our relationships have been upended in recent decades. They’re complicated questions about the isolation caused by poor education or insecure employment. About middle-class women choosing to be single mothers rather than be childless and about children being raised in families where no parent has ever worked. These are thorny social issues posing real-world policy challenges for governments.

Spending $200 on marriage counselling isn’t a bad thing. It’s a nice idea. It’s simple. It’s got little to do with what’s going on in Australia, but why let experience get in the way of hope? If we did that, nobody would ever get married.

Gay Alcorn is an Age columnist and former editor of The Sunday Age. Twitter: @gay_alcorn.

25 comments so far

People who are eligible for middle class welfare should return it with the request that it be givento e.g. projects for indigenous people, action on climate change, protection of native forests, etc.

Commenter

Haquer

Date and time

April 10, 2014, 11:32PM

Whilst well intentioned this would have to be one of the more preposterous policies of this Govt. The figure itself a mystery, $200 to save a marriage? What's that, a couple of hours worth, if that. If only life was that simple.Andrews (one of the faceless men) is theologically driven and this policy merely exposes that.$200= saved marriage, sure.Divorce and separation do not bear the same stigma as in the 50's Mr Andrews, and as the figures allude are on the decline.That the cost attributed to divorce is deemed quantifiable can easily be challenged, what is the cost to society, to families if a couple continues to live in a dysfunctional relationship?Life is complex, $200 won't fix it.

Commenter

A country gal

Date and time

April 11, 2014, 4:49AM

It is a quaint idea, and perhaps misdirected. Relationship Counselling in general may have been a better approach (and the inclusion of defacto and same sex couples suggest this is what it really is).

But as a single guy in his late 40s, I look at the younger "kids" and notice their general lack of social interaction skills - perhaps due to the "i-generation" of anonymous interaction on line - and general selfishness. Counselling on relationships, and the need to consider others, may be a good idea

Commenter

rob1966

Location

Sydney

Date and time

April 11, 2014, 5:00AM

I require counselling before I marry a couple. It is a multi-choice 200 questionnaire that each person completes. The questions are in groups etc. Costs $50. It's processed in Sydney and the graphs come back. It provides the basis of conversation for couples showing strengths and weaknesses. It does not say whether they should or should not marry, but gives a background of expectation. Only once, did a train wreck appear, they chose to ignore their own research and they lasted 3 months. Counselling is an important part of premarriage. It enables me as a counsellors to walk with a couple through a range of issues in a coherent way, and it brings confidence to the conversation these couple have. It also highlights unexpected realisations, and bias. Highly rec omens it.

Commenter

Harry

Location

Barcelona

Date and time

April 11, 2014, 5:43AM

We were required to have pre-marital counselling, by the church we wanted to use. Exactly the sort of thing this voucher idea is for.My wife was the third generation of her family to be we'd there, which was a nice tradition. I was a bit put off by it, resentful, wondering why it was anyone's business and all that. But there was the tradition we wanted to keep, so off we went.Have to tell you I'm glad I did! Definitely made me think of things about living in a partnership that hadn't occurred to this young lad or girl. We had some laughs and some parts that made us squirm and think. It was only a few 1 hour sessions, not a big impost, and in hindsight worth it. We saw one couple have a blazing row over who they thought should do what, and not show up at the next class! Guess it saved a lot of wasted time in their lives. It was astounding, they finally blew up over a question who was taking out the garbage at night? (Apparently, we generally expect whatever our parents did. And look out when that differs)So yes on my experience I'd recommend it.I think our experience would be like many stories that are the motivation for this voucher policy. Look, I get that, but I cannot agree that other taxpayers should pay for it, no matter the benefits.

Commenter

Wayne

Location

Sydney

Date and time

April 11, 2014, 6:19AM

I nominate this article for stupidest one of the year so far. What has lower marriage rates got to do with whether or not it is sensible for the government to support marriage counselling? What does lower divorce rates got to do with it? (Does a slightly lower accident rate mean we should now ignore crash safety?). The economy is relevant, but was already justified (and not refuted) by the 6 billion cost of divorce. Lovers may spend an average $40,000 on a wedding supposedly. People spend an average of $40,000 on a car, should we not safety inspect the worst cars therefore as a waste of government resources?

Government sponsored counselling may or may not be a good idea, but if I were marking this as a debate effort, I'd give you an "F".

Commenter

John

Date and time

April 11, 2014, 6:20AM

$200 to be counselled about getting married, what are these idiots up to ?If you need counselling about getting married....DONT!

Commenter

srg

Location

nambucca heads

Date and time

April 11, 2014, 6:23AM

WOW $200 for Counselling.

Sounds great, but how many sessions will $200 get you? Perhaps about an hour and half at most.

Call me a cynic, but then the therapist advises that more sessions are needed to resolve the situation.

SCAM.

Commenter

Tc

Date and time

April 11, 2014, 6:48AM

You have got to be kidding. Talk about profligate waste, this moronic program will do absolutely nothing and shows just how this government has everything backwards.

For all their bluster about individual responsibility and less government, this policy proves just how much they want to insert themselves into peoples lives for no good reason. We can't afford Gonski, we can't afford NDIS, we can't afford a full NBN, but ideologically driven drivel like this gets the tick.

$20 million or $20 billion, it's still a waste of money.

Commenter

JoBlo

Location

Here

Date and time

April 11, 2014, 6:49AM

Isn't our obsession with accumulating wealth at all costs the "greatest threat to the West"? Putting corporations before people? Not assisting those in need? The un-Christian values of Andrews' Government are just being deflected in blaming divorce and single people for the downfall of society.